Page 4 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

25 Apr 2011, 12:28 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
I have never been called a fa***t or a ret*d by a liberal

I have, frequently. Liberals in the U.S. often think they are intellectually superior to conservatives, and are pretty quick to use the "ret*d" label for broad swathes of conservatives.

JakobVirgil wrote:
you might have trouble reading as well
maybe people disagree with your view because they understand it.

It's not my view DW_a_mom is disagreeing with there.

I guess it's you who might be having trouble reading.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Apr 2011, 1:10 am

psychohist wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
I have never been called a fa***t or a ret*d by a liberal

I have, frequently. Liberals in the U.S. often think they are intellectually superior to conservatives, and are pretty quick to use the "ret*d" label for broad swathes of conservatives.

JakobVirgil wrote:
you might have trouble reading as well
maybe people disagree with your view because they understand it.

It's not my view DW_a_mom is disagreeing with there.

I guess it's you who might be having trouble reading.


Well, ya know...
When it comes to people who vote against their own social and economic interests for the sake of "family values," or gun rights, fear of a black president, or just out of old fashioned fear and loathing of THE GAY, it's kind of hard not to hold such persons in intellectual contempt.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Apr 2011, 1:21 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
I have never been called a fa***t or a ret*d by a liberal

I have, frequently. Liberals in the U.S. often think they are intellectually superior to conservatives, and are pretty quick to use the "ret*d" label for broad swathes of conservatives.

JakobVirgil wrote:
you might have trouble reading as well
maybe people disagree with your view because they understand it.

It's not my view DW_a_mom is disagreeing with there.

I guess it's you who might be having trouble reading.


Well, ya know...
When it comes to people who vote against their own social and economic interests for the sake of "family values," or gun rights, fear of a black president, or just out of old fashioned fear and loathing of THE GAY, it's kind of hard not to hold such persons in intellectual contempt.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Congratulations, you've proven his point. How do gun rights have to be taken over any social or economic interests? Gun rights are within the social interest of not waiting for the cops to come when you could be dead within that time.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Apr 2011, 1:39 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
I have never been called a fa***t or a ret*d by a liberal

I have, frequently. Liberals in the U.S. often think they are intellectually superior to conservatives, and are pretty quick to use the "ret*d" label for broad swathes of conservatives.

JakobVirgil wrote:
you might have trouble reading as well
maybe people disagree with your view because they understand it.

It's not my view DW_a_mom is disagreeing with there.

I guess it's you who might be having trouble reading.


Well, ya know...
When it comes to people who vote against their own social and economic interests for the sake of "family values," or gun rights, fear of a black president, or just out of old fashioned fear and loathing of THE GAY, it's kind of hard not to hold such persons in intellectual contempt.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Congratulations, you've proven his point. How do gun rights have to be taken over any social or economic interests? Gun rights are within the social interest of not waiting for the cops to come when you could be dead within that time.


I'm talking about voting Republican simply because they stand for gun rights (among other things), even though they cut needed social programs in order to give the rich bigger tax cuts, and support big business that undercuts American workers by massive layoffs, cutting pay and benefits, breaking unions, and outsourcing jobs.
Again, it's hard not to hold such persons in contempt.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Apr 2011, 4:33 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Well, ya know...
When it comes to people who vote against their own social and economic interests for the sake of "family values," or gun rights, fear of a black president, or just out of old fashioned fear and loathing of THE GAY, it's kind of hard not to hold such persons in intellectual contempt.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm talking about voting Republican simply because they stand for gun rights (among other things), even though they cut needed social programs in order to give the rich bigger tax cuts, and support big business that undercuts American workers by massive layoffs, cutting pay and benefits, breaking unions, and outsourcing jobs.
Again, it's hard not to hold such persons in contempt.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You know what, the next time someone mentions liberals being arrogant or thinking they know what's best for everyone else and liberals complain about the stereotype, just link to these two posts. If someone called into Rush or one of his brethren and talked like this, people would think they were hearing a conservative plant trying to whip up the audience, it's really that over the top.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

25 Apr 2011, 5:15 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Well, ya know...
When it comes to people who vote against their own social and economic interests for the sake of "family values," or gun rights, fear of a black president, or just out of old fashioned fear and loathing of THE GAY, it's kind of hard not to hold such persons in intellectual contempt.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer wrote:
I'm talking about voting Republican simply because they stand for gun rights (among other things), even though they cut needed social programs in order to give the rich bigger tax cuts, and support big business that undercuts American workers by massive layoffs, cutting pay and benefits, breaking unions, and outsourcing jobs.
Again, it's hard not to hold such persons in contempt.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You know what, the next time someone mentions liberals being arrogant or thinking they know what's best for everyone else and liberals complain about the stereotype, just link to these two posts. If someone called into Rush or one of his brethren and talked like this, people would think they were hearing a conservative plant trying to whip up the audience, it's really that over the top.


is that all it takes to get conservative panties in a bunch?
:cry: :cry: they accused me of single issue voting :cry: :cry:
mommy they said I am not nuanced in my political thinking :cry: :cry:
:cry: :cry: they said I need to think me before I vote :cry: :cry: :cry:
mommy he said needed social prograwms. :lol: :lol:
Heaven forbid a real Marxist every stated an oppinion.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Apr 2011, 12:34 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
is that all it takes to get conservative panties in a bunch?
:cry: :cry: they accused me of single issue voting :cry: :cry:
mommy they said I am not nuanced in my political thinking :cry: :cry:
:cry: :cry: they said I need to think me before I vote :cry: :cry: :cry:
mommy he said needed social prograwms. :lol: :lol:
Heaven forbid a real Marxist every stated an oppinion.


My point was more aimed at Kraig and asking if he was trying to be a political stereotype, but if you want to show everyone how clever you are with more intelligent posts like this, don't let me stop you.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

25 Apr 2011, 12:37 pm

Dox47 wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
is that all it takes to get conservative panties in a bunch?
:cry: :cry: they accused me of single issue voting :cry: :cry:
mommy they said I am not nuanced in my political thinking :cry: :cry:
:cry: :cry: they said I need to think me before I vote :cry: :cry: :cry:
mommy he said needed social prograwms. :lol: :lol:
Heaven forbid a real Marxist every stated an oppinion.


My point was more aimed at Kraig and asking if he was trying to be a political stereotype, but if you want to show everyone how clever you are with more intelligent posts like this, don't let me stop you.


Dox, I think that makes three posts we can quote.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Apr 2011, 12:53 pm

Dox47 wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
is that all it takes to get conservative panties in a bunch?
:cry: :cry: they accused me of single issue voting :cry: :cry:
mommy they said I am not nuanced in my political thinking :cry: :cry:
:cry: :cry: they said I need to think me before I vote :cry: :cry: :cry:
mommy he said needed social prograwms. :lol: :lol:
Heaven forbid a real Marxist every stated an oppinion.


My point was more aimed at Kraig and asking if he was trying to be a political stereotype, but if you want to show everyone how clever you are with more intelligent posts like this, don't let me stop you.


I actually prefer Kraich.
And if you want to think of me as a "political stereotype, then go ahead, I can't stop you. But I still assert that plenty of people are swayed to vote against their own interests for emotional reasons.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Apr 2011, 1:50 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
is that all it takes to get conservative panties in a bunch?
:cry: :cry: they accused me of single issue voting :cry: :cry:
mommy they said I am not nuanced in my political thinking :cry: :cry:
:cry: :cry: they said I need to think me before I vote :cry: :cry: :cry:
mommy he said needed social prograwms. :lol: :lol:
Heaven forbid a real Marxist every stated an oppinion.


My point was more aimed at Kraig and asking if he was trying to be a political stereotype, but if you want to show everyone how clever you are with more intelligent posts like this, don't let me stop you.


Dox, I think that makes three posts we can quote.
I'm not surprised, he loves ad homing people by making their posts out to be "angry" instead of addressing what has been brought to the table. It's hilarious how people just prove what they've been called out on even further.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Apr 2011, 7:01 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I actually prefer Kraich.
And if you want to think of me as a "political stereotype, then go ahead, I can't stop you. But I still assert that plenty of people are swayed to vote against their own interests for emotional reasons.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Sorry about the name thing, I see your username and want to pronounce it craig-chauer and my mind just sort of alters how I see the spelling.

Anyway, I wasn't so much talking about how I perceive you as how other people are going to react, I hate being stereotyped myself so I put a lot of effort into not acting stereotypical. I'd completely agree about people getting swept up in emotion over reason, but I would not attribute that solely or even mostly to conservative causes. My gun related voting for example had nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with putting the Democrats so far off of that idea that I could safely vote for them when I feel they have the better candidate; I felt confident enough in this to vote Obama over McCain in 2008. See, perfectly rational. Like I mentioned in another thread, all I really want is the benefit of the doubt about coming to an opinion honestly, I get very annoyed by this undercurrent of people having had to have been "tricked" to have positions that some people disagree with.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Apr 2011, 7:13 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I actually prefer Kraich.
And if you want to think of me as a "political stereotype, then go ahead, I can't stop you. But I still assert that plenty of people are swayed to vote against their own interests for emotional reasons.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Sorry about the name thing, I see your username and want to pronounce it craig-chauer and my mind just sort of alters how I see the spelling.

Anyway, I wasn't so much talking about how I perceive you as how other people are going to react, I hate being stereotyped myself so I put a lot of effort into not acting stereotypical. I'd completely agree about people getting swept up in emotion over reason, but I would not attribute that solely or even mostly to conservative causes. My gun related voting for example had nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with putting the Democrats so far off of that idea that I could safely vote for them when I feel they have the better candidate; I felt confident enough in this to vote Obama over McCain in 2008. See, perfectly rational. Like I mentioned in another thread, all I really want is the benefit of the doubt about coming to an opinion honestly, I get very annoyed by this undercurrent of people having had to have been "tricked" to have positions that some people disagree with.


I apologize for misunderstanding your post. The political discussions here in this forum are always enjoyable, but like any other sport (I'm guessing - I suck at sports), sometimes my blood is up, and my perceptions aren't always correct.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,687
Location: Northern California

25 Apr 2011, 8:53 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
psychohist wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Quote:
No, wanting to stop illegal immigration is about wanting to preserve the sovereignty of this country, a country that refuses to defend its own borders soon ceases to be a country.

Given that we have had a steady flow of immigration, not always legally defined, since before we even were a nation, I can't buy that argument. It is a desire to take a river that has always flowed and stick a dam on it. That IS change. The fact that people got on the riverboat and got upset when they actually got swept down river doesn't make it the river boats fault. It did what it has always done. It is the upset passengers that misunderstood the journey, and want to cry foul that they can't re-land at the same spot they left from. So they try to dam the river.

You must have missed the word "illegal" in Inuyasha's post. He's not talking about damming the river, just putting up some dikes on the riverbanks to avoid dangerous floods.

you might have trouble reading as well
maybe people disagree with your view because they understand it.


Well this is a case where you are quite simply full of it. I actually have an Aunt whose parents are from Mexico and as far as I know they entered the US legally, my Aunt was born a US citizen. You sir are implying that I have some sort of racial hatred towards members of my own family. Quite frankly you are way out of line, and I would like an apology.


OK, maybe I can be more clear.

In a way, the distinction between legal and illegal is, by itself, a dam in the river. Given that quotas and what not - the wall that forces many who would have been happy to come legally into taking the illegal path - are part of an attempt to slow the river, I am not that excited about exalting legal immigration and condeming illegal. They would all LIKE to be legal, let's be honest, but not everyone gets that opportunity.

When the drive to come illegally is this strong, it would make sense to me to re-examine the process, ie how one gets to be legal. To look more strongly at the driving forces and find a solution. As with so many things, trying to fight the current simply creates unintended problems, and that mess is what we have today in the volume of illegal immigration.

Most of our ancestors got here before we had a law on the concept at all. No quotas, no rules.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

25 Apr 2011, 8:56 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I actually prefer Kraich.
And if you want to think of me as a "political stereotype, then go ahead, I can't stop you. But I still assert that plenty of people are swayed to vote against their own interests for emotional reasons.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Sorry about the name thing, I see your username and want to pronounce it craig-chauer and my mind just sort of alters how I see the spelling.

Anyway, I wasn't so much talking about how I perceive you as how other people are going to react, I hate being stereotyped myself so I put a lot of effort into not acting stereotypical. I'd completely agree about people getting swept up in emotion over reason, but I would not attribute that solely or even mostly to conservative causes. My gun related voting for example had nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with putting the Democrats so far off of that idea that I could safely vote for them when I feel they have the better candidate; I felt confident enough in this to vote Obama over McCain in 2008. See, perfectly rational. Like I mentioned in another thread, all I really want is the benefit of the doubt about coming to an opinion honestly, I get very annoyed by this undercurrent of people having had to have been "tricked" to have positions that some people disagree with.


I apologize for misunderstanding your post. The political discussions here in this forum are always enjoyable, but like any other sport (I'm guessing - I suck at sports), sometimes my blood is up, and my perceptions aren't always correct.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'm glad you're able to admit to that and you've definitely gained more of my respect. I get overzealous at times and that can definitely skew my perception as well as bias.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,795
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Apr 2011, 10:55 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I actually prefer Kraich.
And if you want to think of me as a "political stereotype, then go ahead, I can't stop you. But I still assert that plenty of people are swayed to vote against their own interests for emotional reasons.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Sorry about the name thing, I see your username and want to pronounce it craig-chauer and my mind just sort of alters how I see the spelling.

Anyway, I wasn't so much talking about how I perceive you as how other people are going to react, I hate being stereotyped myself so I put a lot of effort into not acting stereotypical. I'd completely agree about people getting swept up in emotion over reason, but I would not attribute that solely or even mostly to conservative causes. My gun related voting for example had nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with putting the Democrats so far off of that idea that I could safely vote for them when I feel they have the better candidate; I felt confident enough in this to vote Obama over McCain in 2008. See, perfectly rational. Like I mentioned in another thread, all I really want is the benefit of the doubt about coming to an opinion honestly, I get very annoyed by this undercurrent of people having had to have been "tricked" to have positions that some people disagree with.


I apologize for misunderstanding your post. The political discussions here in this forum are always enjoyable, but like any other sport (I'm guessing - I suck at sports), sometimes my blood is up, and my perceptions aren't always correct.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I'm glad you're able to admit to that and you've definitely gained more of my respect. I get overzealous at times and that can definitely skew my perception as well as bias.


8)

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

25 Apr 2011, 10:58 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
psychohist wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Quote:
No, wanting to stop illegal immigration is about wanting to preserve the sovereignty of this country, a country that refuses to defend its own borders soon ceases to be a country.

Given that we have had a steady flow of immigration, not always legally defined, since before we even were a nation, I can't buy that argument. It is a desire to take a river that has always flowed and stick a dam on it. That IS change. The fact that people got on the riverboat and got upset when they actually got swept down river doesn't make it the river boats fault. It did what it has always done. It is the upset passengers that misunderstood the journey, and want to cry foul that they can't re-land at the same spot they left from. So they try to dam the river.

You must have missed the word "illegal" in Inuyasha's post. He's not talking about damming the river, just putting up some dikes on the riverbanks to avoid dangerous floods.

you might have trouble reading as well
maybe people disagree with your view because they understand it.


Well this is a case where you are quite simply full of it. I actually have an Aunt whose parents are from Mexico and as far as I know they entered the US legally, my Aunt was born a US citizen. You sir are implying that I have some sort of racial hatred towards members of my own family. Quite frankly you are way out of line, and I would like an apology.


OK, maybe I can be more clear.

In a way, the distinction between legal and illegal is, by itself, a dam in the river. Given that quotas and what not - the wall that forces many who would have been happy to come legally into taking the illegal path - are part of an attempt to slow the river, I am not that excited about exalting legal immigration and condeming illegal. They would all LIKE to be legal, let's be honest, but not everyone gets that opportunity.

When the drive to come illegally is this strong, it would make sense to me to re-examine the process, ie how one gets to be legal. To look more strongly at the driving forces and find a solution. As with so many things, trying to fight the current simply creates unintended problems, and that mess is what we have today in the volume of illegal immigration.

Most of our ancestors got here before we had a law on the concept at all. No quotas, no rules.


Right now the Federal Government has no credibility when it comes to immigration reform, everyone knows it would equal amnesty with no solutions.